> How do you tell a business this an absolute waste of money? You can’t because culturally code coverage is good. Theoretically yes, but practically not as muc

> How do you tell a business this an absolute waste of money? You can’t because culturally code coverage is good. Theoretically yes, but practically not as much as it should be, because we've chosen a bad way to represent the metric. It should be an absolute number and flipped - we don't care about the covered lines, we care about the uncovered lines. Like instead of "90% of the code is covered by tests" it should be "234 lines aren't covered by any test". Bonus, this way a change that deletes covered code won't negatively affect the metric.